K. M., of the Moscow based
organization The Center of Assistance to International Protection

The Human Rights Committee,
acting through its Working Group pursuant to rule 87, paragraph 2, of the
Committee's rules of procedure, adopts the following decision on
admissibility.

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY

1. The author of the
communication is Y. P. L., mother of V. A. L., deceased. Mrs. Y. P. L.
claims that her son, who was born on 27 June 1969, is a victim of violations
by Russia of articles 6(1), 7 and 10(1) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. She is represented by K. M., of the Moscow based
organization The Center of Assistance to International Protection.

THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR

2.1 In August 1994, Mr. V.
A. L. injured a man during an argument, and following this incident both
criminal and civil charges were pressed against him. On 1 March 1995, he
made full reparation to the plaintiff for damages determined in the civil
case. Awaiting his criminal trial, set for 13 April 1995, V. A. L. was
initially released. However, on 5 March 1995, after failing to appear for a
meeting with the investigator, he was put into pretrial detention in
Moscow's pretrial detention centre, "Matrosskaya Tishina". On 6 April 1995,
Mr. V. A. L. died there of medical complications.

2.2 Mrs. Y. P. L. submits
that her son was healthy when he first entered Matrosskaya Tishina [FN1],
but that he fell ill due to the extremely poor conditions at the prison
(extreme overcrowding, poor ventilation, inadequate food, bad sanitation).
She complains that her son was given no medical treatment despite repeated
requests. Finally, she complains that the Russian Federation has failed to
bring those responsible to justice. [FN2]

[FN2] The communication also
indicates that notification of Mr. V. A. L.'s death was not given to the
family or to the local registry office until 11 April 1995, after V. A. Ll's
lawyer had discovered the fact of his death while at the detention centre to
meet with him. This matter apparently was examined by the chief of the
pretrial detention centre, according to the letter of 10 July 1995 from the
deputy city procurator (provided with the communication), result of this
investigation unknown.

2.3 The author submits
that the conditions at Moscow's pretrial detention centres are documented in
the 1994 report of the Special Rapporteur against Torture, Mr. Nigel S.
Rodley, to the Commission on Human Rights. [FN3] Regarding access to health
care within the pretrial detention centres, the report acknowledges that
overcrowding exacerbates the inability of the staff to provide food and
health care, and notes the high incidence of disease in the centres. [FN4]
Matrosskaya Tishina is held out for particular criticism in the report: "The
conditions are cruel, inhuman and degrading; they are torturous. [FN5]"

2.4 According to Mrs. Y.
P. L., based on statements from other detainees in the cell with her son,
shortly after he was brought to Matrosskaya Tishina his physical and mental
state began to deteriorate. He began to lose weight and had a temperature.
He was coughing and gasping for breath. Several days before his death he
stopped eating and drank only cold water. He became delirious at some point
and eventually lost consciousness.

2.5 It appears that other
detainees requested medical assistance for V. A. L. at some time after the
first week of his detention, and that a medical doctor attended to him once
or twice in the cell and that he was given aspirin for his temperature.
However, between 3 April and his death, during what was apparently a rapid
and obvious deterioration in his condition, he received no medical attention
despite repeated requests for assistance by the other detainees. On 6 April,
after the other detainees cried out for assistance, medical personnel
arrived with a stretcher. V. A. L. died later that day in the prison clinic.
His death certificate identifies the cause of death as "acute
cardiac/circulatory insufficiency, intoxication, cachexia of unknown
etiology." [FN6]

2.6 The decision to open a
criminal case in V. A. L.'s death would be made by the chief of the pretrial
detention centre, according to Mrs. Y. P. L.'s counsel. [FN7] Final
decisions on the opening of criminal cases lie with the procurator's office.
Mrs. Y. P. L. has made timely and repeated applications to open a criminal
case, which have been consistently denied. [FN8] She concludes therefore
that she has exhausted domestic remedies.

[FN8] Exhibit N6, decision of
Deputy City Procurator, dated 10 July 1995, (no ground for reversal of
decision by chief of the pretrial detention centre); Exhibit N8d, decision
of Acting Chief for Supervision over the observation of Laws in the
Implementation of Criminal Punishment, date 9 October 1995, (denying
repeated requests to open a criminal case); Exhibit N7, decision of
Inter-Regional Procurator, dated 9 April 1996, (affirming decision not to
open criminal case); Exhibit N4a, decision of Senior Assistant
Inter-Regional Procurator, dated 13 June 1996, (affirming prior decision).
All documents in Russian with English summary.

2.7 The procurator's
decisions refusing to open a criminal investigation are based on the
conclusion that the speedy onset of death in this situation was the result
of the nature of the pneumonia compounded by the stressful conditions of
confinement, and that under these circumstances it would be impossible to
find the detention centre employees, including medical personnel accountable
in the matter. [FN9]

3. Mrs. Y. P. L. claims
that the Russian Federation violated her son's fundamental human rights by
causing his death as a result of confinement under conditions unfit for
human survival, and that it has also failed to provide any meaningful legal
protection against such violations. In her opinion, this constitutes
violations of articles 6(1), 7 and 10(1) of the Covenant.

ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

4.1 Before considering any
claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in
accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it
is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

4.2 By note of 23 March
1998, the State party informed the Committee that it had no objections to
the admissibility of the communication.

4.3 The Committee has
ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter
is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation
or settlement.

4.4 The Committee is not
aware of any other obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, and
considers that it should be examined on its merits.

5. The Human Rights
Committee therefore decides:

(a) that the
communication is admissible;

(b) that, in accordance
with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State party shall
be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of
transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements
clarifying the matter and the measures, if any, that may have been taken by
it;

(c) that any explanations
or statements received from the State party shall be communicated by the
Secretary-General under rule 93, paragraph 3, of the rules of procedure to
the author's counsel, with the request that any comments which she may wish
to make should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva,
within six weeks of the date of the transmittal;

(d) that this decision
shall be communicated to the State party and to the author's counsel.